Comey: "I Was Wrong"

[Cardinal]

1. That's not quite what Horowitz said. He said based on FBI standards, the opening of the investigation was appropriate.
The question Barr is asking, and I would imagine Durham as well, were the standards applied properly.

2. The FISA warrant was used as a backdoor to gain access to the Trump campaign. By October 2016, it seems to have been an article of faith in the FBI leadership that Trump was conspiring with Russia.

Why did you respond to my post? It had nothing to do with my question. Were you just springboarding my post?

 

[apdst]

must be feeling the heat.....



Comey: 'I Was Wrong' -- FBI's FISA Abuse 'Was Not Acceptable' | Breitbart

He's worried about his upcoming indictment.

 

[Chomsky]

The IG DID NOT find "no partisanship. He said that Priestap didn't act in a partisan matter in opening the investigation. He did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of partisanship during the investigation but he did find that reasons for the errors and omissions were not adequately answered. In his testimony he EXPRESSLY leaves open the possibility that partisanship DID play a role.

So, you would like me to clarify?

"The I.G. found no evidence of partisanship"

Do you believe that is accurate?

 

[trixare4kids]

1. There was no illegal wiretapping, no spying, no unprofessional behavior in the Russia Probe, and no bias conducted in that investigation.
2. The FISA warrant into Carter Page was bad.

So here's the six million dollar question: what do those two things have to do with each other?

There was illegal surveillance per Horowitz.

Go over the testimony and stop wasting my time.

“If you don’t have a legal foundation to surveil somebody and you keep doing it, is that bad?” Graham asked Horowitz.

“Absolutely,” he replied, adding that “it’s illegal surveillance.”

“It’s not court-authorized surveillance,” Horowitz added.

 

[Chomsky]

If what you are saying is true, (bold), I have no reason to disbelieve the above, wouldn't the onus be on the FBI to have informed the Trump campaign that Manafort was under investigation since 2014? And if so, why would you put blame on the Trump investigation for things they didn't know?

Maybe, maybe not. The F.B.I. may have been looking at others in the campaign, they may have wanted to see where it leads to within the campaign, or they may have been looking into Trump or his family itself.

Remember Manafort's business partner, Rick Gates, was also hired in as the Deputy Campaign Manager to assist Manafort. They came as a pair. And as we can see, Gates subsequently pleaded and turned state evidence against Manafort. So there was a whole lot of criminal people associated with Trump and his campaign.

Lesson to be learned: Be careful of those you associate with.

 

[apdst]

Obviously there would be no justification for partisanship or criminal wrong-doing in federal investigations, and thankfully the I.G. found none. But when you put a criminal like Manafort in charge of your campaign, what the hell do you think would occur? If you don't want the scrutiny of the F.B.I., don't surround yourself with criminals. Duh! :doh

He said he didn't find any documentary, or testimonial proof and interviewed people not under oath. He never said "there wasn't any".

If you don't want the scrutiny of the F.B.I., don't surround yourself with criminals. Duh! :doh

Guilt by association isn't a thing. In fact, it violates The Constitution...

The Supreme Court has declared guilt by association 'alien to the traditions of a free society and the First Amendment itself'. 28 It violates both the Fifth Amendment, which requires that guilt must be personal, and the First Amendment, which guarantees the right of association.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjABegQIDRAK&usg=AOvVaw1LKip1JUyrvDxx3hiwxWGO

 

[trixare4kids]

must be feeling the heat.....



Comey: 'I Was Wrong' -- FBI's FISA Abuse 'Was Not Acceptable' | Breitbart

Seriously, he lacks so much humility. Certainly lacking enough to not feel the heat.
He is so damn self-righteous. Even when Wallace reads back what Horowitz revealed, he still won't admit culpability.

 

[Cardinal]

If what you are saying is true, (bold), I have no reason to disbelieve the above, wouldn't the onus be on the FBI to have informed the Trump campaign that Manafort was under investigation since 2014?

If the FBI warned the trump campaign that their campaign adviser was under investigation, the trump campaign would then tell Manafort that he was under investigation.

And if so, why would you put blame on the Trump investigation for things they didn't know?

We don't know what Trump did or didn't know about Manafort, but the knowledge that Manafort was sleazy AF was public knowledge at the time of his hiring.

 

[Athanasius68]

Why did you respond to my post? It had nothing to do with my question. Were you just springboarding my post?

You asked what the problems with the FISA warrant had to do with the first.
The answer, as a springboard into the Trump campaign, is the answer.

 

[trixare4kids]

Maybe, maybe not. The F.B.I. may have been looking at others in the campaign, they may have wanted to see where it leads to within the campaign, or they may have been looking into Trump or his family itself.

Remember Manafort's business partner, Rick Gates, was also hired in as the Deputy Campaign Manager to assist Manafort. They came as a pair. And as we can see, Gates subsequently pleaded and turned state evidence against Manafort. So there was a whole lot of criminal people associated with Trump and his campaign.

Lesson to be learned: Be careful of those you associate with.

You said above that ONLY the FBI knew that Manafort was being investigated. Want to try answering my question again? How was the Trump campaign supposed to know? There is no lesson to be learned here. Stop blaming the Trump campaign for that which wasn't known.

 

[Chomsky]

That's not quite what Horowitz said. He said that under FBI protocol, such an investigation can be justified and he found no reason that politics played a role in that decision.
The standard used was 'Downer said that PapaD said that Mifsud said that some Russians said that some other Russians had incriminating info on Mrs. Clinton.'
A few things:
1. Is that an acceptable standard for thinking Trump was conspiring with Russia? After all, everything else over the past few years flows from this. Manafort had nothing to do with Russia; he worked for Ukraine.

2. Why was the FBI director in the weeds of the investigation? His job is to supervise.

3. Isn't it rather fair to say that there is a STRONGER argument, based on the standards used to investigate candidate Trump, to THINK about, again merely THINK about, not actually do anything, investigate candidate Biden?

If that's the I.G.'s conclusion, I do not believe I am qualified to dispute it.

 

[Athanasius68]

If the FBI warned the trump campaign that their campaign adviser was under investigation, the trump campaign would then tell Manafort that he was under investigation.



We don't know what Trump did or didn't know about Manafort, but the knowledge that Manafort was sleazy AF was public knowledge at the time of his hiring.

If the FBI was investigating Manafort as a mole in the campaign ( he worked though for Ukraine), then the campaign terminating Manafort would solve that problem.

 

[Athanasius68]

If that's the I.G.'s conclusion, I do not believe I am qualified to dispute it.

However, Mr. Barr is.
Which is the question he is asking.
And it's a very fair question.

 

[Cardinal]

There was illegal surveillance per Horowitz.

Please cite the relevant passage from the Horowitz report supporting this claim.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

Go over the testimony and stop wasting my time.

“If you don’t have a legal foundation to surveil somebody and you keep doing it, is that bad?” Graham asked Horowitz.

“Absolutely,” he replied, adding that “it’s illegal surveillance.”

“It’s not court-authorized surveillance,” Horowitz added.

He was responding point blank to a hypothetical question posed by Graham. The conditions in that question did not occur in reality.

 

[Chomsky]

You said above that ONLY the FBI knew that Manafort was being investigated. Want to try answering my question again? How was the Trump campaign supposed to know? There is no lesson to be learned here. Stop blaming the Trump campaign for that which wasn't known.

What does Trump Campaign knowing or not, have to do with whether it was proper to investigate the campaign? You're moving far afield.

Regardless, Trump hires criminals and surrounds himself with them. He should clean-up his act, if he doesn't want to draw law enforcement scrutiny or end-up in the pokey.

 

[Chomsky]

However, Mr. Barr is.
Which is the question he is asking.
And it's a very fair question.

I don't trust Barr, he's too partisan for me. But you make a good logical argument here, and I'll accept it.

 

[apdst]

Please cite the relevant passage from the Horowitz report supporting this claim.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf



He was responding point blank to a hypothetical question posed by Graham. The conditions in that question did not occur in reality.

I'll do you one better than that, this is straight from the horse's mouth...

If you don’t have a legal foundation to surveil somebody and you keep doing it, is that bad?” Graham asked Horowitz.

“Absolutely,” he replied, adding that “it’s illegal surveillance.”

IG Horowitz Says FISA Surveillance Without Legal Foundation Is ‘Illegal Surveillance’

 

[Cardinal]

I'll do you one better than that, this is straight from the horse's mouth...

If Trump murdered a hooker, would that be illegal?

 

[apdst]

If Trump murdered a hooker, would that be illegal?

This goes to show how Liberals can't handle being challenged. :lamo

 

[Cardinal]

This goes to show how Liberals can't handle being challenged. :lamo

But if Trump did murder a hooker, it would be illegal, wouldn't it?

 

[vesper]

The IG DID NOT find "no partisanship. He said that Priestap didn't act in a partisan matter in opening the investigation. He did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of partisanship during the investigation but he did find that reasons for the errors and omissions were not adequately answered. In his testimony he EXPRESSLY leaves open the possibility that partisanship DID play a role.

I watched the interview. I thought Wallace did a good job. Comey is a POS and I hope his day of accountability is coming. Mistakes my foot. If it were just "mistakes and sloppiness" John Durham would not have moved his investigation into a criminal one.

I found the interview on YouTube. Thought I would drop it here for all to see.

 

[apdst]

But if Trump did murder a hooker, it would be illegal, wouldn't it?

You got blown out of the water bad on that one. You have no clue what Horowitz came up with...lmao

 

[Cardinal]

I watched the interview. I thought Wallace did a good job. Comey is a POS and I hope his day of accountability is coming. Mistakes my foot. If it were just "mistakes and sloppiness" John Durham would not have moved his investigation into a criminal one.

I found the interview on YouTube. Thought I would drop it here for all to see.

Comey is a boy scout who never should have been director. He never had any idea how to navigate himself or the FBI through the treacherous terrain of politics, and an FBI director absolutely must be able to do that. He always tried to do the right thing, and never seemed to have any idea those actions might blow up in his face. And blow up in his face they did, seeing as Trump is now sitting in the White House.

 

[apdst]

I watched the interview. I thought Wallace did a good job. Comey is a POS and I hope his day of accountability is coming. Mistakes my foot. If it were just "mistakes and sloppiness" John Durham would not have moved his investigation into a criminal one.

I found the interview on YouTube. Thought I would drop it here for all to see.

Comey, even after getting caught lying, lied his ass off in the interview...lol

 

[Cardinal]

You got blown out of the water bad on that one. You have no clue what Horowitz came up with...lmao

The correct answer is that if Trump murdered a hooker then that would absolutely be illegal. So what we can conclude from this is that Trump murdered a hooker.